Cited by

Opinions in Minnesota that cite State v. Bertsch, 707 N.W.2d 660.

314 citing documents.

State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Tchad Tu Henderson 890 N.W.2d 739 Minn. Ct. App. 2017
This court “may vacate or modify a sentence on many grounds, including that the sentence is unreasonable or inappropriate, or that such a result is in the interest of fairness and uniformity.” (citations and quotation omitted); see also Minn. Stat. § 244.11, subd.
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Rosalyn Mary Brooks Minn. Ct. App. 2017
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ramsey Louis Kettle Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(stating “[a]n offense is necessarily included .
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Jerry Lee Collins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Euric Ards Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Michael Scott Johnson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION We review a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination.” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Cass Howard Ellingboe Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“An offense is necessarily included in a greater offense if it is impossible to commit the greater offense without committing the lesser offense.” (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Dimitri Devonte Harrell Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Artaveus Shawntez Atkins Minn. Ct. App. 2016
We “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); (“[W]e believe that it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathan Charles Robert Schwartz Minn. Ct. App. 2016
14 (Minn. 2006); review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Tetyang Puok Juate-Yout Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Timothy Scott Anderson Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or 2 durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” (quotation omitted); d 6, 7 (Minn. 1981) (expressing belief “that it would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart”).
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Walter David Tischer Minn. Ct. App. 2016
d 660, 668 (Minn. 2006) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Corey Michael Kokette Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Bailey Jordan Garcia Minn. Ct. App. 2016
Appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure.” 5 (alteration omitted) (quotation omitted).
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Nathaniel Donald Beulah Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Donald Kalib John Nichols Minn. Ct. App. 2016
DECISION We review a district court’s refusal to grant a dispositional departure from the sentencing guidelines for an abuse of discretion, and we will affirm the imposition of a presumptive sentence “when the record shows that the sentencing court carefully evaluated all the testimony and information presented before making a determination,” review denied (Minn. Sept.
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Davie Eugene McCoy Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Arthur Barnes Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. David Alan Nielsen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
(“[I]t would be a rare case which would warrant reversal of the refusal to depart.”).
State of Minnesota v. Ian Christopher Mitchell 881 N.W.2d 558 Minn. Ct. App. 2016
“To determine whether an offense is an included offense falling under [section 609.04], a court examines the elements of the offense instead of the facts of the particular case.”
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Scott Anthony Hebert Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Daniel Alvin Hennen Minn. Ct. App. 2016
An appellate court “generally will not interfere with a sentencing court’s decision to impose a term within the presumptive sentence range.” d 10, 14 (Minn. 2015); (stating that appellate courts “will not ordinarily interfere with a sentence falling within the presumptive sentence range, either dispositionally or durationally, even if there are grounds that would justify departure” (quotation omitted)); (
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kenneth Redding Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Matthew Christopher Desjarlais Minn. Ct. App. 2016
State of Minnesota v. Charles Kenneth Redding Minn. Ct. App. 2016